The Hen or The Egg?

When It Changed- Joana Russ

2005-07-21T21:20:00.000-04:00

“When It Changed” is a rather short story, but since it focuses solely around a point in time when things “change” for a race of human women it doesn’t need to be long. There isn’t very much action in the story, but the feelings it evokes are deep. A planet full of women are now faced with the prospect of having men in their lives again. These women have learned how to survive without their human counterparts and still have meaningful relationships. They repeat something the women in Sheldon’s story say, which is to “give them time” in reference to their general progress as a whole. This implies a heavy amount of patience due specifically to the lack on men. The major difference between this female society and Sheldon’s is that Russ’s women do not appear to have a choice in the return of men, whereas Sheldon’s women make it quite clear that the men will not survive in their society.

Russ seems to have given her characters a taste of freedom and then snatched it back. The men in the story are rough and very sure of themselves. This confidence is also obvious to the women. Janet even ends up asking her daughter if she could ever love a man, the implication being that the girl may have no choice in the matter.

I do not see quite as much messing with the reader in the Russ as I did in the Sheldon piece. Russ makes me feel as if an entirely female society is not unusual and as I read the story I was as angry with the men for intruding upon their lives as the characters themselves were. Sheldon made the whole idea seem slightly dirty and that “sinister fruitiness” was prevalent in all of the descriptions of her female characters. Katy and Janet just seem like two people who love each other, have a life together and do not want to see either torn apart. The fact that they’re both women is almost irrelevant.

I do not think I completely understood the point Russ was trying to make. Sheldon came through like a ton of bricks to the head, but Russ did the complete opposite. I see a top layer ideal (that of women being better off without men and men continuing to inflict women with their need to control) but I feel there is something more that I am missing.
I loved these two pieces if only because of the unusual perspective they grant the reader. Also, the fact that women wrote such hardcore and intellectual pieces makes me proud. “Russ, along with Ursula K. LeGuin, marks the emergence of a welcome female (and feminist) presence into a genre that was long as exclusive a boy's club as the Citadel. Both have produced excellent novels, but Russ has a bit more vinegar in her than the prim LeGuin" The only LeGuin I have read was the introduction at the beginning of class, so I am not one to compare the two, but the fact that they have breached the “boys club” mentality surrounding science fiction is in itself a great achievement. Knowing that they have gone beyond breaching it and written work that is at least as good as their male counterparts just makes the victory that much sweeter.

THE FYI LIBRARY , By: Disch, Thomas M., Forbes, 00156914, Spring99 FYI, Vol. 163, Issue 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Russ

Houston, Houston, Do You read?- Alice B. Sheldon

2005-07-20T22:08:00.000-04:00

I decided to take out the Blish and the Clark stories we read because I really didn’t get that into them and I didn’t find much research material to go on either. Since I have taken those two out I am replacing them with “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” authored by James Tiptree Jr. and “When it Changed” by Joana Russ. These two pieces are actually both written by females, as Tiptree is a pseudonym for Alice B. Sheldon. This is an important fact to note because both stories center around a female dominated society and how the inequality of power in patriarchal and matriarchal hierarchies effects men and women alike.

“Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” explores the repercussions of a female dominated society by delving into the mind of one of three men who were on a space flight in the 1960’s (i.e. the height of male dominated society and power) who get shot through a solar flare and 300 years into the future. Due to an epidemic which caused male sterilization the Earth is solely populated by women and they must clone themselves to produce more humans. This setting manages to place the most extreme of male egos into a version of Earth that can only be threatening. Although two of the men do convince themselves that they will lead the women (Bud in his fantastic dreams of being a god simply because he has a penis and Dave in his belief that God sent him to these women to teach them the error of their ways and be a stern, domineering father figure to them.), Lorimer manages to see both sides of truth. He understands the necessity that forced the women to not only clone themselves, but also make “Andy’s”, which are the more masculine or “androgynous” women. Yet he also sees the male perspective and how terrifying it is to know you are completely helpless and without power so suddenly.

Sheldon depicts the female society as communal, hard working, languorous in their goals for progress, and almost innocent. This so utterly conflicts with the inherent male aggression and domination that it quickly becomes clear that these men will never fit into this new society of human beings. “Much of Tiptree's work made manifest Walt Kelly's pronouncement "We have met the enemy, and he is us" -- usually Him.” -Elizabeth Hand This statement is very accurate for this particular story in multiple ways. One, is that the men automatically view this female society as a threat (thus an enemy). The second way is slightly more subtle. In the story, Lady Blue says “As I understand it, what you protected people from was largely other males, wasn’t it?.....But the fighting is long over. It ended when you did, I believe.” This is not quite an accusation, but more a statement of fact that men were and will be their own enemies. Without men women need no protection. They are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and living happy, productive lives in the absence of men if only because they have lost the fear or rape and war.

The overall portrait of this story is not of feminism though, so much as it is a look at a reversal of equality and power. The society Sheldon creates is not a utopia by any means, which is telling of the necessity for an easy medium between a patriarchy and a matriarchy. It is an accurate description when Dave says that the women are simply “Marking time.” and on some level I agree with his unhappiness that the human race is no longer striving towards anything and is just living.

Hand, Elizabeth, Fantasy & Science Fiction, 10958258, Sep2000, Vol. 99, Issue 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tiptree,_Jr

Driftglass- Delany

2005-07-05T09:00:00.000-04:00

“Driftglass” is a lovely story about a type of military unit which uses technology to allow humans to live underwater. The main character, Tio Cal, is a part of this group, but has lived alone ever since he was horribly injured attempting to lay some type of power line in the ocean. We are given his “twin”, a younger version of himself who will attempt the same task that maimed and disfigured Tio Cal. The young fish-man dies in his own attempt, even as the children of Juao, Tio Cal’s friend, leave to join this family of mer-people. This story shows how technology pushes us forward and at the same time nature can still hold us back. No matter the tools at their disposal, the ocean still rules over some of humanity’s goals. The name of the story refers back to the “Driftglass” Tio Cal collects from the ocean’s edge; fragments of glass from Coke bottles and other objects that have polluted the sea. Ironically the ocean rubs the glass between sand and the waves until it is smooth and beautiful. To me this implies that the ocean and nature in general has the ability to reshape all of man’s creations as it sees fit. Showing us that no matter how much we advance or how smart we get, we will always have to adapt to our surroundings, rather than shape our surroundings to our will.

This is not a new idea by any means, but Delany uses science fiction to make a much more pertinent observation about it than what we see looking at our past. If men of the future with such great technology at their disposal are still being ruled by the tempers of the sea it seems a lot more important an idea than when we look at those who came before us with less technology than we currently hold. “Isaac Asimov suggests that "man has always been at the mercy of forces beyond his control---consider economic and sociological forces, whims of climate, and the disasters of war.”” Asimov seems to be of one mind with Delany on this particular subject and gives even more credence to the fact that if we looked around our world today we would see how these varying conditions of our planet effect our lives on a daily basis and could very well one day lead to our destruction.

Although this ideology seems to imply that we will never truly rule all that we see it does not mean that we have failed. The ability to adapt to our surroundings, be it getting used to very cold weather or having a surgery to give us gills, is one of the greatest traits humans possess. We have the capability to work around seemingly impossible odds even though we will never be able to surmount them. This is demonstrated in the story by the fact that two generations have now attempted to beat the ocean despite knowing the dangers. Humans may not succeed the first few tries, and many may die in the attempt, but eventually we will find a way around whatever problem is currently under consideration.

I love how subtly Delany speaks of the ocean’s rule over the humans in “Driftglass.” It is something seemingly offhand when Tio Cal talks about the driftglass. A tiny detail that seems to be without meaning, but when he explains that it is the ocean which causes human objects to become something other than what they are Delany is pointing out that which our environment also does to us.

Studies in Short Fiction; Winter97, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p61, 11p Seabury, Marcia Bundy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_R._Delany

There Will Come Soft Rains- Bradbury

2005-07-05T08:54:00.000-04:00

“There Will Come Soft Rains” is the last story that has reflections from World War II and the atomic bomb. This is one of my personal favorites because there isn’t a single human being in it, yet the writer manages to make his audience sentimental and even sad. The story centers on a house that is completely automated. We are shown the house making breakfast for a family that isn’t there, cleaning what is already clean and even reading poetry in the evening; but no humans. The house appears to be the only thing left from humans and works ceaselessly as there’s no one to tell it to stop. In the end a fire is accidentally started that quickly spreads throughout the house and we watch as the house and its last vestiges of humanity die. In my opinion the story touches on a theme we’ve already discussed. That of determining what humanity is, however in this story it is also asking whether or not the things we create hold our humanity even after our species is gone. In fact, in my opinion it is the central theme/question and makes a big impact on why the story makes readers feel sad for it’s end.

In “No Woman Born” Deirdre says “I’ve begun to realize what a tremendous force the human ego really is. I’m not sure I want to suggest it has any mystical power it can impress on mechanical things, but it does seem to have a power of some sort. It does instill its own force into inanimate objects, and they take on a personality of their own. People do impress their personalities on the houses they live in you know.” I believe this is the point Bradbury is trying to make in this story. Human beings have such force of personality that they leave fingerprints of themselves on all the things they use and love. So if humans are gone from the Earth, yet our “things” remain, (things that we loved and cherished and lived in) does that mean that our humanity survives even if we do not? For the sake of this story we must assume that it does mean our humanity lives on without us. How much more poignant does that make the destruction of the house? For me it deepens the sadness greatly because not only have we been lost, but now so has our humanity. With the burning of the house we see the last vestiges of ourselves disappear, never to be known by others again.

The title of the story is also very important considering how the house is destroyed. “There Will Come Soft Rains” implies that there will come an end to pain and destruction. The rain will put out the fire. It almost gives you hope, and then snatches it right back as you realize that the rains will come too late to save ourselves and the images of ourselves that we leave behind.

“To the readers of Literary Cavalcade:
You must write every single day of your life.
You must read dreadful dumb books and glorious books, and let them wrestle in beautiful fights inside your head — vulgar one moment, brilliant the next.
You must lurk in libraries and climb the stacks like ladders to snuff books like perfumes and wear books like hats upon your crazy heads.
I wish for you a wrestling match with your Creative Muse that will last a lifetime.
I wish craziness and foolishness and madness upon you.
May you live with the hysteria, and out of it make fine stories.
Which finally means, may you be in love every day for the next 20,000 days. And out of that love, remake a world”. — Ray Bradbury

This quote from Ray Bradbury gives an inkling from where such a story as “There Will Come Soft Rains” comes. His joy in reading, writing, and creating the impossible bears much fruit in this story. As it is wholly unique in it’s central character (or lack there of) it is amazing how easily Bradbury still manages to evoke sympathy from his readers and subtly sheds light on the idea that just because we are gone does not necessarily mean a part of us doesn’t still exist.

Literary Cavalcade; May2005, Vol. 57 Issue 8, p24, 3/5p, 1bw Bradbury, Ray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury

Thunder and Roses- Sturgeon

2005-07-05T08:52:00.000-04:00

“Thunder and Roses” is our first World War II inspired story. With the advent of the atomic bomb war changed drastically. This story accurately foretells the arms race and gives a dire warning about the possible outcome. One character, Star Anthim, is attempting to find the location of our “button,” the way for Americans to strike back at their tormentors and cause equal devastation. Star is searching for this to prevent its use, as it will utterly ruin the planet and kill all life. This sounds like an odd, even traitorous idea to most Americans, but Star points out how inhumane it would be to destroy the entire planet for our own revenge. Sturgeon is asking us “what is humanity?” In the story the answer is to allow others to live even though we know our country is doomed. In the end I agree with Star. It is very hard to swallow an entire nation’s pride, but in my opinion pride will never be worth the cost of obliterating our home.

I find the definition of “humane” ironic. The definition I found at dict.org is:

“2: marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering”

This is what Star is trying to do for the whole planet, but the most “human” reaction to such events is revenge and equal pain being brought down upon the heads of our enemies. We are allowed into the heads of a few of the other people in the story and all are asking the same question, “Why haven’t we struck back?” To be honest this is confusing to me. I cannot decide if Sturgeon is trying to say that humans are not naturally humane or, that to be humane (or human) we must rise above our primal instincts. Either way, doing what is right for the majority of species on the planet is something that requires a fight, both internally and externally as we see in Pete Mawser. Pete not only has to decide whether or not he can agree with Star’s intentions, but in the end he has to kill Sonny to prevent him from pushing the “button.”

The story ends rather eloquently with Pete. ““You’ll have your chance,” he said into the far future. “And by heaven, you’d better make good.” After that he just waited.” He made an opportunity for there to be a future at the expense of the last action that might have brought him some peace or joy. Perhaps that in itself is humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Sturgeon

No Woman Born- Moore

2005-07-04T17:01:00.000-04:00

“No Woman Born” was written by one of the earliest female science fiction writers. The story revolves around a famous songstress named Deirdre who, technically speaking dies in a fire. However, her brain is taken while it’s still functioning and is placed in the body of a robot. The crux of the story is whether or not she is still human since her thoughts, memories, gestures, and personality are the same despite her metal casing. It appears that those around her have the same dilemma as people today have in viewing someone different than themselves as “sub-human.” This tendency humans have implies that an individual’s humanity is not solely based on their own internal feelings, nor on their outward appearance so much as it is determined largely by society’s perception of each individual. We have pacemakers (artificial hearts), artificial limbs, and reconstructive surgery that replace broken bones with equivalent metal pieces. I, myself have a metal plate and a screw in each foot to correct my flat-footedness. Are people with these things any les human, or does the difference lie in how much of a person is no longer organic? Perhaps it does indeed lie directly with society’s perception and how many others share a particular quality.

The most obvious literary comparison to this story is “Frankenstein.” Even Maltzer (the creator of Deirdre in her robot form) compares himself directly to Dr. Frankenstein. “I know there’s only one legitimate way a human being can create life. When he tries another way, as I did, he has a lesson to learn. Remember the lesson of the student Frankenstein? He learned, too.” The implication being that anything not created “naturally” was somehow wrong. Maltzer goes so far as to say that he must give up his own life because he created Deirdre. Moore twists the Frankenstein plot however, and gives her “creature” an awareness of its superiority that Shelley never gave the Frankenstein creature. “Deirdre embraces her creator, however, and forces him to reevaluate his ignorance and see the true implications of his creation that must now live as an enhanced post human rather than a tragic subhuman.” By saving Maltzer from himself she shows her remaining humanity and proves that she is better than humans, not worse.

Obviously the title “No Woman Born” has direct relation to the fact that Deirdre, in her second form, was created and not born, but I believe it has even greater significance. Again comparing the story with Frankenstein; we see Shelley’s creature unsure of himself, wanting only to be accepted, expecting hate and disdain from his human counterparts, and needing someone like himself. Deirdre on the other hand is fully aware of her superiority to humans, and although admitting a sadness about her eventual drift from humanity, she does not seem afraid enough to request another like herself as Shelley’s creature did of Dr. Frankenstein. Also, Deirdre chose to use her greater abilities to impress and mesmerize humans, holding them under her sway and avoiding the need to feel accepted by creating a feeling of reverence or worship within the humans who viewed her show. This, in my opinion, implies a greatness of not just being created, but also of sex. Moore implants the idea that Deirdre’s ability to deal with her new form so easily stems directly from her femininity. When contrasted with the male Frankenstein monster Deirdre seems even more in control and strong. To me, it is a statement about a unique power that women possess to adapt and accept more quickly then men do and is very relevant to the fact that this story was written by a woman and dealt with one of the few female main characters in the science fiction genre.

http://frankenstein.lcc.gatech.edu/NoWomanBorn.html

http://frankenstein.lcc.gatech.edu/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.L._Moore

Nightfall- Asimov

2005-07-01T06:12:00.000-04:00

The third installment of stories will include Asimov’s “Nightfall”, “Thunder and Roses” by Sturgeon, and “There Will Come Soft Rains” by Bradbury. These stories fall between the years of 1944 and 1950. Because of their proximity to WWII two of these stories have a large relevance to the consequences of atomic war.

First in this group is Asimov’s “Nightfall”. The story centers around a planet with so many suns there isn’t any darkness or night for thousands of years at a time. Because there’s such a huge gap between “nightfalls” there is little to no information about why their civilization seems to crumble during these times. The answer ends up being the huge amount of stars, which this planet of people has never seen. The implication being that they go crazy at the realization that they are so miniscule, they know next to nothing, and there is so much vastness to learn about. This story is similar to The Machine Stops in that both remove something we take for granted. Human beings consistently think so much of themselves that it seems we are just waiting for a downfall from some unknown corner. Both stories seem to be warning us to never assume we’ve learned all there is to know. It could prove a fatal flaw.

Asimov is really poking fun at humans in this story, but in a rather terrifying way. These particular humans have the same egotism we maintain; assuming that they have learned all they need to know. They do believe they’ll find something new, but they do not begin to imagine how far off they really are. This is a reflection of ourselves. In Galileo’s time humans could not conceive that they weren’t the center of the universe. We have consistently had to stave off blissful ignorance with a spike edged club. The few who sought enlightenment were traditionally disbelieved and laughed at if not excommunicated and beheaded. In Asimov’s story the scientists are not treated thusly, although they are not really taken seriously either.

Because of the human tendency to fear change and the ideal of “If it’s not broke don’t fix it.” we become content and complacent with what we already know, convincing ourselves that there is “nothing new under the sun.” But if this were true we would have no reason to fear change and Asimov’s humans would not have gone crazy when they were introduced to their own glaring lack of knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimov

Who Goes there?- Campbell

2005-06-30T23:12:00.000-04:00

Campbell’s “Who Goes There?” is a sci-fi thriller that is based around the question of what would happen if something could imitate a human so perfectly that you wouldn’t know if you were an imitation or not? So what is human? Our physical selves? If that can be perfectly imitated down to the cellular level than this seems like a bad example of real humans. In the story other than the scientific experiments the men devise to determine who is human and who isn’t there is one other defining human characteristic the alien does not imitate. That of murdering one’s own kind. Ironically enough, Campbell implies that it is our very destructive nature which sets us apart from other species. One type of technology currently under debate which is slightly comparative to Campbell’s story is that of cloning. One reason many people are against it is the question of what would happen if there were more than one of the same being and how would you know which were the original?”

Defining what makes us real or human is like splitting hairs really. We can argue all day long that real is what actually exists, but Campbell’s creature existed. So we must become more specific and say what makes a real human? Our cells? Our awareness of our own mortality? Although these things separate us from all plants and animals on our planet that does not necessarily mean that they will continue to be defining characteristics. Since Campbell’s monster was able to imitate humans down to the cellular level and was, if anything more aware of its own mortality, these criterion are fallible. As I stated earlier we end up being left with only the human instinct to murder. Now, this is only within Campbell’s story specifically, so once again we have a definition that only fits to certain circumstances.

On a symbolic and literary level Campbell is not asking what makes us human though. He is asking us to realize how difficult it is to determine reality versus the ersatz in everything. If we are honest reality is simply perception. As long as we perceive someone as being human than they are until we are given proof otherwise. This is applied to all aspects of life. Your spouse is faithful to you so long as you do not catch them with someone else. Your child is smart so long as they have good grades. Of course your child neglects to mention that she’s been copying off of her best friend for the past semester. We are all subject to our own perceptions of reality and truth, and because we are always learning new truths or facts or making new definitions, reality is constantly changing. Perhaps this is why faith and religion flourish amongst humans and no other species on Earth. Deep down we are aware that we know nothing, even if we don’t like to admit it. If reality is perception than believing someone else is in control is just a matter of perceiving the divine in the everyday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell

The Machine Stops- Forester

2005-06-30T21:59:00.000-04:00

The next three stories all discuss what defines humanity, but use completely different approaches to do so.

Forster’s “The Machine Stops” is basically about a possible future of Earth in which humanity has moved below ground to live within a gigantic machine which takes care of every need or want they could possibly have. The main character is a woman named Vashti, however the driving force of the story is her son, Kuno who appears to be the only person in the machine who still has a spark of “humanity”. Meaning he wishes to go outside, to explore beyond his known limits. His discontent with what has been given to him can be comparative to the old adage “The grass is always greener on the other side.” which seems to be an innately human characteristic.
During class discussion the present day technology most seemed to connect with the story was that of the internet. People gradually losing the need to go outside to shop, socialize, find entertainment, etc. etc. It is something that is a slippery slope and I believe Forster’s story gives a very telling warning about what could happen if we aren’t careful with technology.

“It is a commonplace that we are in the midst of a computer revolution that will change our society perhaps more radically than the Industrial Revolution, and likewise a commonplace that the literary imagination has often gone before us in envisioning not only the shape but the possible significance of such changes.” The relevance of the previous statement shows through in other works which accurately foretold the future of technology. Since we can see our current society closing in on itself, spending less and less time in physical contact, it creates a somewhat frightening truth when applied to “The Machine Stops.” What if we do become more and more comfortable with communication and interaction through a computer intermediary? It doesn’t take a huge leap of logic to see how our present circumstances could evolve into those of the story.

I found it funny how few people in class would admit that, given the opportunity, they would be content to live in one place so long as all their needs and wants were consistently met. It’s one of those hypothetical situations that people feel safe in responding in what is viewed as the more noble or courageous response. But they feel safe because they are quite certain they’ll never actually be put in the situation and possibly proven wrong. Therefore it is an exercise in futility to even ask it. I personally spend so much time indoors and at my computer now that I am fairly certain I would be content in the circumstances Vashti and her society lived in. I do admit that I would miss outdoors, but I certainly wouldn’t miss sweating, bee stings, pollen, or the drastic temperature changes between the outdoor humidity and the indoor AC freeze that most buildings in the South sustain throughout the summer and fall.

Another aspect of the story I found intriguing was the lack of a class system. The technology does not discriminate, and so neither do the people. Mr. Frye apparently saw it as an indiscriminate punishment. “Thus our attention is focused not on how this brave new world affects its various classes but on how it affects everyone. As Northrop Frye puts it, today we may have the "growing sense that the whole world is destined to the same social fate with no place to hide" (29). Whether corporation executive or auto mechanic, we all increasingly interact with our technology at work and at home.” The phrase “with no place to hide” bespeaks a horror to run from, not toward. At the moment we are most definitely running toward this particular future, but I am not so certain it is something to be feared. Obviously I feel that exploration and discovery is essential to being human, but establishing a system where everyone is treated equally sounds almost too good to be true. These people were given food, drink, entertainment, education, a bed to sleep in, a tub to bathe in; they were anything but neglected and all were given exactly the same size room with the same amounts of food. And although they did not have physical contact, they were still individual to some degree. No one was forced to lecture, and as far as I could tell from the reading, those who did lectured on whatever subject interested them. If anything they were pampered. I can certainly understand viewing this society as a bad thing, but I cannot color it as dark as most do.

Studies in Short Fiction; Winter97, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p61, 11p Seabury, Marcia Bundy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._M._Forster

The Star- Wells

2005-06-29T21:58:00.000-04:00

“The Star” is entirely different from “The Birthmark”. It actually appears to be more of a natural disaster story up until the very end when Wells throws in a couple of Martians. Basically a meteor passes a tish too close to Earth and jacks up the weather systems and just about everything else. Billions die, and the whole episode is almost apocalyptic. Woe is us, what would happen if humans didn’t exist???

And then Wells pulls waaaaay back and gives us a perspective we rarely bother looking from. That of another race on another planet watching this natural catastrophe and being slightly surprised humanity survived at all. And in that moment we realize how truly minute we are in the grand scheme of the universe.

With the Industrial Revolution so close to the people of Wells’ time humans were engulfed in their own greatness and their own achievements. Wells made them realize there could be so much more out there and that we matter little in comparison. A lesson humans are still learning today. At least now we’ve actually bothered ourselves enough to go out into the big, black, beyond and try to make friends with those daunting others we are searching for. Or maybe we’ll just attempt to conquer them....we are human after all.

Wells said "We of the early twentieth century, and particularly that growing majority of us who have been born since the Origin of Species was written, perceive that man, and all the world of men, is no more than the present phase of a development so great and splendid that beside this vision all the exploits of humanity shrivel in the proportion of castles in the sand." This quote exemplifies exactly the feeling Wells gives us in “The Star” when he jumps into the Martians heads. That we are so utterly insignificant to what will be in a million years and, in reality, we are also insignificant to any other intelligent beings that may exist now.

In this story Wells deals with the arrogance knowledge and technology have given us as a species. We believe in our own greatness and ability to overcome anything given the proper numbers and environment. Sadly, we are wrong. Earth consistently proves to us that we cannot begin to predict every change or nuance that will affect our lives. This plot is also explored in “Driftglass” later in my discussions. If we cannot control how our own planet changes our daily lives then how can we believe ourselves powerful and knowledgeable enough to be remotely important?

50, 100, & 150 Years Ago. Scientific American; Jul2004, Vol. 291 Issue 1, p18, 1p, 1bw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.g._wells

The Birthmark- Hawthorne

2005-06-29T21:33:00.000-04:00

The first two stories I’d like to discuss are “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorne and "The Star" by H.G. Wells. They were written in the mid to late 1800’s and are some of the earliest examples of science fiction in literature. These pieces are rather accurate in foretelling what humans would one day be capable of due to mathematics, science and technology, but they delve much more deeply into the effects such knowledge can cause.

Beginning with “The Birthmark”, the story centers around a scientist's desire to remove his wife’s birthmark because he feels it mars her beauty. This is a fairly regular procedure nowadays. Thus, it appears that Hawthorne’s story wasn’t nearly as farfetched as I’m sure he thought it was at the time of writing it. Sadly, Georgiana (the wife) dies due to her particular blemish treatment and Aylmer (the scientist) is left with a beautiful, perfect, dead wife. Beyond the obvious irony in the story there is a more subtle sort which is still applicable today. That of women wishing to change their appearance to make a man happy, or at the very least, to feel they fit in with the predetermined idea society has about what is beautiful.

In the story Georgiana has no problem with her blemish and the idea to have it removed doesn’t occur to her until she realizes how very much her husband detests it. Women are still doing such things today. Cosmetic surgery to make their face and arse more shapely, liposuction to remove fat, lip injections to add fat, breast augmentation, hair dye, hair extensions......by the time some of them are finished their male counterpart probably doesn’t even recognize them (or choose not to recognize them) as they look far too close to a Barbie Doll for comfort. Plastic is as cold and lifeless as a corpse and just as lacking in pliability.

Hawthorne explores the human desire for perfection in the things we view as well as the fall attempting to obtain said perfection can cause. Quite a few science fiction stories revolve around man’s tendency to over reach his bounds and the lack of asking “Should I?” alongside “Could I?” In this story Hawthorne gives Aylmer the greatest punishment for his lack of tolerance for basic human imperfections by removing Georgiana’s birthmark, but taking her life.

When it gets right down to it Aylmer is really doing something a lot of humans in relationships do. Asking the one he loves to change for his own personal pleasure. Generally we ask our partners to change their attitudes, opinions, or toilet lid habits and avoid requesting something as drastic as physical change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hawthorne

First Post

2005-06-22T02:16:00.000-04:00

So, this is the first post in my weblog created for the specific purpose of meeting my Popular Culture 4482 course requirements. The goal of this blog is to delve into the ever-shifting line between Science Fiction and Science Reality. I will be discussing the works read in class which cover a broad timeline of science fiction to date. Also, I plan to look into current technologies, see how they compare to what our predecessors thought, and give my own opinion on how accurate they were. The title of the blog comes from something mentioned in one of the class discussions. Is technology influenced by man's ideas or are man's ideas influenced by technology? Thus, which came first? The Hen or The Egg?